DOCSLIB.ORG

Dr. Bob's Axiom of Choice Centennial Lecture Fall 2008 (Updated Fall

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dr. Bob's Axiom of Choice Centennial Lecture Fall 2008 (Updated Fall Axiom of Choice 1 Dr. Bob’s Axiom of Choice Centennial Lecture Fall 2008 (updated Fall 2020) Ernst Zermelo, 1871–1953 (from Ernst Zermelo and Freiburg) A Century Ago Note. This year (2008) marks the 100 year anniversary of Ernst Zermelo’s first statement of the currently accepted axioms of set theory. In particular, in 1908 he published two foundational works: 1. Neuer Beweis f¨urdie M¨oglichkeit einer Wohlordnung (A New Proof of the Pos- sibility of a Well-Ordering), Mathematische Annalen 65, 107–128 (translated into English in From Frege to G¨odel:A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Jean van Heijenoort, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967, 183–198). 2. Untersuchungen ¨uber die Grundlagan der Mengenlehre, I (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I), Mathematische Annalen 65, 261–281 (translated into English in From Frege to G¨odel:A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Jean van Heijenoort, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967, 199–215). Axiom of Choice 2 Note. In the first of these two papers, Zermelo addresses criticism of his 1904 paper “Beweis, dass jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann” (Proof that Every Set can be Well-Ordered), Mathematische Annalen 59, 514–516 (translated into English in From Frege to G¨odel:A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Jean van Heijenoort, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967, 139–141). In the 1904 paper, Zermelo uses the “Axiom of Choice” to prove that every set can be well- ordered (to be explained shortly). However, the mathematical community reacted negatively to Zermelo’s paper and he was motivated to respond in his first 1908 paper. Zermelo’s Axioms of Set Theory Note. In the second of these two papers, Zermelo presents the first axiomatic set theory. In that era, set theory was undergoing a bit of turmoil. Russell’s Paradox had been revealed and the foundations of set theory were coming into question. Part of Zermelo’s paper involves constructions of sets and his approach does not allow the constructions of sets which are “too big” (Russell, at roughly the same time, introduces his “theory of types” to address this problem). In addition, Zermelo seems to be the first to see that the existence of infinite sets must be taken as an axiom (page 199 of van Heijenoort). Note. Zermelo states 7 axioms (to paraphrase): Axiom of Choice 3 1. Axiom of Extensionality. If M ⊂ N and N ⊂ M, then M = N. 2. Axiom of Elementary Sets. There exists the null set ∅ that contains no elements. For any object a in the universal set, the set {a} exists. If a and b are in the universal set, the set {a, b} exists. 3. Axiom of Separation. For a proposition P (x) with a truth value for all x ∈ M, M has a subset MP containing as elements those elements x of M for which P (x) is true. 4. Axiom of the Power Set. For every set T there corresponds another set P(T ), the power set of T , that contains as elements precisely all subsets of T . 5. Axiom of Union. For every set T there corresponds another set ∪ T , the union of T , that contains as elements precisely all elements of the elements of T . (If T = {A, B, C} where A, B, C are sets, then ∪ T = A ∪ B ∪ C.) 6. Axiom of Choice. “If T is a set whose elements all are sets that are different from ∅ and mutually disjoint, its union ∪ T includes at least one subset S1 having one and only one element in common with each element of T .” Axiom of Choice 4 7. Axiom of Infinity. “There exists at least one set Z that contains the null set as an element and that for any a ∈ Z, {a} ∈ Z.” (So Z is an infinite set since {∅, {∅}, {{∅}}, {{{∅}}},...} ⊂ Z. Z is called an inductive set.) The Axiom of Choice Note. We concentrate on the Axiom of Choice. Another statement of it is [Jech, 1973]: Axiom of Choice. “For every family F of nonempty sets, there is a function f such that f(S) ∈ S for each set S in family F. f is called a choice function.” Some object to the Axiom of Choice due to its nonconstructive nature—it guaran- tees that an element can be chosen from every set in a family of sets, but it gives no constructive way to actually choose the elements. For example, if F = {X, Y } where X and Y are nonempty disjoint sets of real numbers, how would one choose an element of X and an element of Y ? Note. The Axiom of Choice can be used to construct a (in the sense of Lebesgue) nonmeasurable set. A related result is the Banach-Tarski paradox which uses the Axiom of Choice to decompose a sphere into five pieces, two of which can be combined (through rigid rotations) to give a copy of the sphere and the other three which can be (rigidly) combined to give a second copy of the sphere. That is, the sphere can be cut into pieces which can then be combined to make two copies of the sphere, thus doubling the volume of the sphere out of nothing! Axiom of Choice 5 Note. We now consider 3 “principles” equivalent to the Axiom of Choice: 1. Well-Ordering Principle (Zermelo’s Theorem). Every set can be well-ordered. 2. Maximal Principle I (Zorn’s Lemma). Let (P, <) be a nonempty partially ordered set and let every chain in P have an upper bound. Then P has a maximal element. 3. Maximal Principle II (Tukey’s Lemma). Let F be a nonempty family of sets. If F has finite character, then F has a maximal element (maximal with respect to set inclusion). We now elaborate on these ideas. Well-Orderings Definition. [Hrbacek and Jech, 1984] A set R is a binary relation on set A if all elements of R are ordered pairs of elements of A. We denote (a, b) ∈ R as aRb.A binary relation R in A which is reflexive (for all a ∈ A, aRa), antisymmetric (for all a, b ∈ A with aRb and bRa, we have a = b), and transitive (for all a, b, c ∈ A with aRb and bRc, we have aRc) is said to be a partial ordering of A. We denote such an ordering as ≤. If for a, b ∈ A, either a ≤ b or b ≤ a then a and b are comparable. An ordering ≤ of A is a total ordering (or linear ordering) if any two elements of A are comparable. Axiom of Choice 6 Example. Subset inclusion ⊂ is a partial ordering on, say, P(R). Certain sets are not comparable under this partial ordering (for example, (1, 3) and (0, 2)), so this is not a total ordering. Example. Less than or equal to ≤ is a total ordering on R. Definition. A total ordering ≺ of a set A is a well-ordering if every nonempty subset of A has a ≺-least element. Example. Less than or equal to ≤ is a well-ordering on N. However, ≤ is not a well-ordering of R (consider the nonempty subset A = (0, 1) of R). Note. The Well-Ordering Principle says that there is a well-ordering of every set. Note. You may have heard that there is no ordering of the complex numbers. What this means is that there is no way to define “≤” on C in such a way that the usual ordering on R comes as a “subordering.” This idea of well-ordering a set should not be confused with ordering of a field (in, for example, the definition of R as a “complete ordered field”). Chains Definition. A subset C of a partially ordered set (P, ≺) is a chain in P if C is totally ordered by ≺. u ∈ P is an upper bound of chain C if c ≺ u for all c ∈ C. a ∈ P is a maximal element if a ≺ x for no x ∈ P . Axiom of Choice 7 Note. The Maximal Principle I (Zorn’s Lemma) states that a nonempty partially ordered set P for which every chain in P has an upper bound, has a maximal element. Finite Character Definition. Let F be a family of sets. We say that F has finite character if for each set X, X ∈ F if and only if every finite subset of X belongs to F. Note. The Maximal Principle II (Tukey’s Lemma) states that every nonempty family of sets of finite character has a maximal element (maximal with respect to subset inclusion). Bibliography 1. Ferreir´os,Jos´e. Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and its Role in Modern Mathematics, Basel/Berlin/Boston: Birkh¨auser Verlag, 1999. 2. van Heijenoort, Jean. From Frege to G¨odel:A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. 3. Hrbacek, Karel and Jech, Thomas. Introduction to Set Theory, 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded. Basel/New York: Marcel Dekker, 1984. 4. Jech, Thomas J. The Axiom of Choice. New York: American Elsevier Pub- lishing, 1973. Revised: 9/26/2020.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version
    MATHEMATICS 144 SET THEORY FALL 2012 VERSION Table of Contents I. General considerations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1. Overview of the course…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Historical background and motivation………………………………………………………….………………4 3. Selected problems………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 I I. Basic concepts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Topics from logic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Notation and first steps………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. Simple examples…………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 I I I. Constructions in set theory.………………………………………………………………………………..……….34 1. Boolean algebra operations.……………………………………………………………………………………….34 2. Ordered pairs and Cartesian products……………………………………………………………………… ….40 3. Larger constructions………………………………………………………………………………………………..….42 4. A convenient assumption………………………………………………………………………………………… ….45 I V. Relations and functions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….49 1.Binary relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….49 2. Partial and linear orderings……………………………..………………………………………………… ………… 56 3. Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….…….. 61 4. Composite and inverse function.…………………………………………………………………………… …….. 70 5. Constructions involving functions ………………………………………………………………………… ……… 77 6. Order types……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………… 80 i V. Number systems and set theory …………………………………………………………………………………. 84 1. The Natural Numbers and Integers…………………………………………………………………………….83 2. Finite induction
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS KEVIN BARNUM Abstract. In this paper we will look at the Axiom of Choice and some of the various implications it has. These implications include a number of equivalent statements, and also some less accepted ideas. The proofs discussed will give us an idea of why the Axiom of Choice is so powerful, but also so controversial. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Axiom of Choice and Its Equivalents 1 2.1. The Axiom of Choice and its Well-known Equivalents 1 2.2. Some Other Less Well-known Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice 3 3. Applications of the Axiom of Choice 5 3.1. Equivalence Between The Axiom of Choice and the Claim that Every Vector Space has a Basis 5 3.2. Some More Applications of the Axiom of Choice 6 4. Controversial Results 10 Acknowledgments 11 References 11 1. Introduction The Axiom of Choice states that for any family of nonempty disjoint sets, there exists a set that consists of exactly one element from each element of the family. It seems strange at first that such an innocuous sounding idea can be so powerful and controversial, but it certainly is both. To understand why, we will start by looking at some statements that are equivalent to the axiom of choice. Many of these equivalences are very useful, and we devote much time to one, namely, that every vector space has a basis. We go on from there to see a few more applications of the Axiom of Choice and its equivalents, and finish by looking at some of the reasons why the Axiom of Choice is so controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Axiom of Choice
    Math 361 Axiom of Choice 17 Axiom of Choice De¯nition 17.1. Let be a nonempty set of nonempty sets. Then a choice function for is a function f sucFh that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F Example 17.2. Let = (N)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = the least element of S: Example 17.3. Let = (Z)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = ²n where n = min z z S and, if n = 0, ² = min z= z z = n; z S . fj j j 2 g 6 f j j j j j 2 g Example 17.4. Let = (Q)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f as follows. F P f;g Let g : Q N be an injection. Then ! f(S) = q where g(q) = min g(r) r S . f j 2 g Example 17.5. Let = (R)r . Then it is impossible to explicitly de¯ne a choice function for . F P f;g F Axiom 17.6 (Axiom of Choice (AC)). For every set of nonempty sets, there exists a function f such that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F We say that f is a choice function for . F Theorem 17.7 (AC). If A; B are non-empty sets, then the following are equivalent: (a) A B ¹ (b) There exists a surjection g : B A. ! Proof. (a) (b) Suppose that A B.
    [Show full text]
  • Éclat a Mathematics Journal
    Éclat A Mathematics Journal Volume I 2010 Department of Mathematics Lady Shri Ram College For Women Éclat A Mathematics Journal Volume I 2010 To Our Beloved Teacher Mrs. Santosh Gupta for her 42 years of dedication Preface The revival of Terminus a quo into E´clat has been a memorable experience. Eclat´ , with its roots in french, means brilliance. The journey from the origin of Terminus a quo to the brilliance of E´clat is the journey we wish to undertake. In our attempt to present diverse concepts, we have divided the journal into four sections - History of Mathematics, Rigour in Mathematics, Extension of Course Contents and Interdisciplinary Aspects of Mathematics. The work contained here is not original but consists of the review articles contributed by both faculty and students. This journal aims at providing a platform for students who wish to publish their ideas and also other concepts they might have come across. Our entire department has been instrumental in the publishing of this journal. Its compilation has evolved after continuous research and discussion. Both the faculty and the students have been equally enthusiastic about this project and hope such participation continues. We hope that this journal would become a regular annual feature of the department and would encourage students to hone their skills in doing individual research and in writing academic papers. It is an opportunity to go beyond the prescribed limits of the text and to expand our knowledge of the subject. Dootika Vats Ilika Mohan Rangoli Jain Contents Topics Page 1) History of Mathematics 1 • Abelia - The Story of a Great Mathematician 2 • Geometry in Ancient Times 6 2) Rigour in Mathematics 10 • Lebesgue Measure and Integration 11 • Construction of the Real Number System 18 • Fuzzy Logic in Action 25 3) Extension of Course Contents 29 • Continuum Hypothesis 30 • Dihedral Groups 35 4) Inter-disciplinary Aspects of Mathematics 41 • Check Digits 42 • Batting Average 46 1 History of Mathematics The history behind various mathematical concepts and great mathemati- cians is intriguing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equivalents of Axiom of Choice
    The Equivalents of Axiom of Choice 1. Axiom of Choice. The Cartesian product of a nonempty family of nonempty sets is nonempty. 2. Choice Function for Subsets. Let X be a nonempty set. Then for each nonempty subset S Í X it is possible to choose some element s Î S. That is, there exists a function f which assigns to each nonempty set S Í X some representative element f(S) Î S. 3. Set of Representatives. Let {Xl : l Î L} be a nonempty set of nonempty sets which are pairwise disjoint. Then there exists a set C containing exactly one element from each Xl. 4. Nonempty Products. If {Xl : l Î L} is a nonempty set of nonempty sets, then the Cartesian product Õ Xl is nonempty. That is, there exists a lÎL function f : L ® U Xl satisfying f(l) Î Xl for each l. lÎL 5. Well-Ordering Principle (Zermelo). Every set can be well ordered. 6. Finite Character Principle (Tukey, Teichmuller). Let X be a set, and let F be a collection of subsets of X. Suppose that F has finite character (i.e., a set is a member of F if and only if each finite subset of that set is a member of F). Then any member of F is a subset of some Í-maximal member of F. 7. Maximal Chain Principle (Hausdorff). Let (X, p_) be a partially ordered set. Then any p_-chain in X is included in a Í-maximal p_-chain. 8. Zorn’s Lemma (Hausdorff, Kuratowski, Zorn, others).
    [Show full text]
  • The Z of ZF and ZFC and ZF¬C
    From SIAM News , Volume 41, Number 1, January/February 2008 The Z of ZF and ZFC and ZF ¬C Ernst Zermelo: An Approach to His Life and Work. By Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, Springer, New York, 2007, 356 pages, $64.95. The Z, of course, is Ernst Zermelo (1871–1953). The F, in case you had forgotten, is Abraham Fraenkel (1891–1965), and the C is the notorious Axiom of Choice. The book under review, by a prominent logician at the University of Freiburg, is a splendid in-depth biography of a complex man, a treatment that shies away neither from personal details nor from the mathematical details of Zermelo’s creations. BOOK R EV IEW Zermelo was a Berliner whose early scientific work was in applied By Philip J. Davis mathematics: His PhD thesis (1894) was in the calculus of variations. He had thought about this topic for at least ten additional years when, in 1904, in collaboration with Hans Hahn, he wrote an article on the subject for the famous Enzyclopedia der Mathematische Wissenschaften . In point of fact, though he is remembered today primarily for his axiomatization of set theory, he never really gave up applications. In his Habilitation thesis (1899), Zermelo was arguing with Ludwig Boltzmann about the foun - dations of the kinetic theory of heat. Around 1929, he was working on the problem of the path of an airplane going in minimal time from A to B at constant speed but against a distribution of winds. This was a problem that engaged Levi-Civita, von Mises, Carathéodory, Philipp Frank, and even more recent investigators.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Regularity Properties and Determinacy
    Regularity Properties and Determinacy MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Yurii Khomskii (born September 5, 1980 in Moscow, Russia) under the supervision of Dr. Benedikt L¨owe, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: August 14, 2007 Dr. Benedikt L¨owe Prof. Dr. Jouko V¨a¨an¨anen Prof. Dr. Joel David Hamkins Prof. Dr. Peter van Emde Boas Brian Semmes i Contents 0. Introduction............................ 1 1. Preliminaries ........................... 4 1.1 Notation. ........................... 4 1.2 The Real Numbers. ...................... 5 1.3 Trees. ............................. 6 1.4 The Forcing Notions. ..................... 7 2. ClasswiseConsequencesofDeterminacy . 11 2.1 Regularity Properties. .................... 11 2.2 Infinite Games. ........................ 14 2.3 Classwise Implications. .................... 16 3. The Marczewski-Burstin Algebra and the Baire Property . 20 3.1 MB and BP. ......................... 20 3.2 Fusion Sequences. ...................... 23 3.3 Counter-examples. ...................... 26 4. DeterminacyandtheBaireProperty.. 29 4.1 Generalized MB-algebras. .................. 29 4.2 Determinacy and BP(P). ................... 31 4.3 Determinacy and wBP(P). .................. 34 5. Determinacy andAsymmetric Properties. 39 5.1 The Asymmetric Properties. ................. 39 5.2 The General Definition of Asym(P). ............. 43 5.3 Determinacy and Asym(P). ................. 46 ii iii 0. Introduction One of the most intriguing developments of modern set theory is the investi- gation of two-player infinite games of perfect information. Of course, it is clear that applied game theory, as any other branch of mathematics, can be modeled in set theory. But we are talking about the converse: the use of infinite games as a tool to study fundamental set theoretic questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • The Life and Work of Kurt Gödel – Part I
    The Life and Work of Kurt Gödel – Part I Sandra Takano Gödel‘s Life Divided in 3 phases 1) Childhood in Brno 2) Years in Vienna as a student and Dozent – when he obtained his greatest mathematical achievements 3) Emigration to America – when his interests turn to philosophy and physics Kurt Gödel‘s Personality ● „der Herr Warum“ ● Asking „answarable“ questions and searching for rationality throughout his life ● Deanne Montgomery (colleague) recalls: – childlike naivieté – neded to be looked after just like a child – unsophisticated tastes – dependent on other people Childhood (1906-1924) ● Norn April 28, 1906, in Brünn, Austria- Hungary (now Brno, Czech Republic) ● German family of Rudolf Gödel (1874–1929) and Marianne Gödel (1879–1966) ● Mother attended a French lyceé in Brno ● Father fulfilled many of son‘s wishes and „provided plentifully“ for their education The Gödel family, ca. 1910: Marianne, Kurt, father Rudolf, son Rudolf Childhood Gödel‘s birthplace, Brno, 1993 The Gödel villa, Brno, 1983 Childhood ● At the age of 6, 16 September 1912, Gödel was enrolled at the Evangelische Privat-Volks- und Bürgerschule. The Evangelische Privat-Volks- und Bürgerschule, Brno, 1993 Childhood ● Courses in religion, reading, writing (in the old script), German grammar, arithmetic, history, geography, natural history, singing and physical education ● Highest marks, although frequently absent because of rheumatic fever ● No lasting effects, but beginning of his hypocondria A page from Gödel‘s first arithmethic book, 1912-1913 Gymnasium ● In 1916,
    [Show full text]
  • Math 800 Foundations of Mathematics Jt Smith Outline 24 Spring 2008
    MATH 800 FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS JT SMITH OUTLINE 24 SPRING 2008 1. In class, Maximal Principles unit a. Routine exercise 1: the axiom of choice implies the Teichmüller–Tukey lemma. i. Let F, a family of subsets of a set X, have finite character. ii. To prove: F has a maximal member. iii. Strategy: Verify that the partially ordered set <F,f> satisfies the hypotheses of the Kuratowski–Zorn principle, and use that to get a maximal member. iv. So, consider a chain C f F. v. To prove: C has an upper bound. vi. This will follow if it’s shown that ^C 0 F. vii. And that follows if it’s shown that E 0 F whenever E is a finite subset of ^C. viii. But such an E is a subset of some member C of C because C is a chain; thus E 0 F because C 0 F. b. Substantial problem 1: the Teichmüller–Tukey lemma implies the axiom of choice. i. Given a set I and a nonempty set Ai for each i 0 I. ii. To find m : I 6 ^i 0 I Ai such that mi 0 Ai for each i 0 I. iii. Let F be the family of all injections m f I × ^i 0 I Ai such that mi 0 Ai for each i 0 Dom m. iv. Show that F has finite character. I’ll leave out some details here. v. The Teichmüller–Tukey lemma implies that F has a maximal member m. vi. If there existed i 0 I – Dom m, then there would exist a 0 Ai.
    [Show full text]
  • Zermelo and the Early History of Game Theory∗
    Zermelo and the Early History of Game Theory∗ Ulrich Schwalbe Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany Paul Walker Department of Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand August 1997, revised October 1999 In the modern literature on game theory there are several versions of what is known as Zermelo's theorem. It is shown that most of these modern statements of Zermelo's theorem bear only a partial relationship to what Zermelo really did. We also give a short survey and discussion of the closely related but almost unknown work by K¨onigand K´almar. Their papers extend and considerably generalize Zermelo's approach. A translation of Zermelo's paper is included in the appendix. Keywords: History of Game Theory, Chess, Zermelo JEL Classification: B19; C70; C72 1 Introduction It is generally agreed that the first formal theorem in the theory of games was proved by E. Zermelo1 in an article on Chess appearing in German in 1913 (Zermelo (1913)). In the modern literature on game theory there are many variant statements of this theorem. Some writers claim that Zermelo showed that Chess is determinate, e.g. Aumann (1989b, p.1), Eichberger (1993, p.9) or Hart (1992, p.30): \In Chess, either White can force a win, or Black can force a win, or both sides can force a draw." Others state more general propositions under the heading of Zermelo's theorem, e.g. Mas Colell et al. (1995, p.272): \Every finite game of perfect information ΓE has a pure strategy Nash equilibrium that can be derived by backward induction.
    [Show full text]